I'd like to take an attempt at throwing the pimary argument for Obamacare on its ear. We are being sold this proposal under the auspice that it is a problem in this country that, if not but for cost, people that need (remember that word for later) to be treated, would be. Instead of priortizing treatment by money (which is really not true in the first place), we will treat people on the basis of whether they need to be treated or not. Does anybody really beleive that's how it will turn out when government gets its teeth into it? Or will it be more like the thread about the kid that died in the UK? Where despite his need some buarucrat gets to decide whether he deserves to live or not based on his life choices. So is priortizing health care by who needs it with minimal cost to the indidvidual really the right thing to do? Is it really so wrong to insist on people take responsiblity for their health care cost. If the cost of things weren't what they were, we probably woudl not have a problem with that. After all if people have to pay for it and can be refused on the basis of being able to pay, one would think people woudl start to catch on that they have to plan for such things financially. As with so many other thngs in society Government doesn't do the strenght of society any favors by absolving its people of responsibility.